Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

swerve

Super Moderator
Four, actually. Chile's bought it. It joined the Sea Ceptor users group in 2017, & the three Chilean Type 23s are all being fitted with it. I think the first to be refitted is now at sea.

Lockheed Martin - Type 23 Air Defence Project
Armada de Chile - FF-05 - "lanzador de misiles de defensa puntual SEACEPTOR".
Almirante Cochrane (FFG-05) - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

They're also getting TRS-4D radars, upgraded sonar 2087, & CMS330 from LM Canada.

P.S. I've realised that the photo of Cochrane at sea on the Armada de Chile site is post-upgrade. The radar antenna is a TRS-4D rotator, & one can see the Sea Ceptor mushroom farm.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Four, actually. Chile's bought it. It joined the Sea Ceptor users group in 2017, & the three Chilean Type 23s are all being fitted with it. I think the first to be refitted is now at sea.

Lockheed Martin - Type 23 Air Defence Project
Armada de Chile - FF-05 - "lanzador de misiles de defensa puntual SEACEPTOR".
Almirante Cochrane (FFG-05) - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

They're also getting TRS-4D radars, upgraded sonar 2087, & CMS330 from LM Canada.
Yep I know that. I was specifically speaking to the combination of the Sea Ceptor and the LM CMS330 CMS It's the CMS being used by the RCN, RNZN, and the Chilean Navy. That is unless the RN has decided to use it as their CMS as well?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Oops! Missed that. Read too hastily. Sorry.

Four Sea Ceptor orders (with four different radars), selected but AFAIK not yet ordered by another navy (Brazil), & CAMM-ER got its first order recently, from an undisclosed customer - though Janes has suggested that's Brazil, which is using its own CMS from Embraer.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member

CSC development continues to slowly move along with the contract for CAMM and ExLS now awarded. It'd probably be nice for the RCN to quietly thank the RNZN for derisking the integration of CAMM with CMS330.

I was quite surprised Sea Ceptor was purchased given the family of missiles the RCN already has in service - thought there'd be too much overlap with existing systems. I'll take a win for Sea Ceptor however - particularly packaged in ExLS,
 

swerve

Super Moderator
From what I've read, MBDA didn't put it up against ESSM, but for the CIWS layer, saying that the fast pop-up & quick flip-over makes it effective at close ranges - & after they'd had a look, the Canucks agreed. So they're getting a CIWS which can reach out 25km.
 

Albedo

Active Member
From what I've read, MBDA didn't put it up against ESSM, but for the CIWS layer, saying that the fast pop-up & quick flip-over makes it effective at close ranges - & after they'd had a look, the Canucks agreed. So they're getting a CIWS which can reach out 25km.
I wonder whether the larger, longer CAMM-ER is able to maintain the low minimum engagement range of CAMM? If so, things could be simplified with CAMM-ER replacing both CAMM and ESSM although that might also need a longer ExLS.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I don't have the links to hand, but from LM pictures of ExLS I've seen (including a cut-away), with things of known height to compare them with , I think that CAMM-ER might be a bit too long to fit in ExLS as it is now.

Interesting question about CAMM-ER minimum engagement range. Standard CAMM is quoted as "less than 1 km" - but how much less? And however close range, I'd still like there to be something able to shoot down such things as little drones a few hundred metres away, & small things which'd be a waste of a CAMM, quickly & reliably.
 

Black Jack Shellac

Active Member
I don't have the links to hand, but from LM pictures of ExLS I've seen (including a cut-away), with things of known height to compare them with , I think that CAMM-ER might be a bit too long to fit in ExLS as it is now.

Interesting question about CAMM-ER minimum engagement range. Standard CAMM is quoted as "less than 1 km" - but how much less? And however close range, I'd still like there to be something able to shoot down such things as little drones a few hundred metres away, & small things which'd be a waste of a CAMM, quickly & reliably.
I prefer CAMM to a gun weapon. At a few hundred meters, the kinetic energy of the weapon would still carry it into the ship and likely still take it out of action, even for a relatively slow, sub-sonic weapon. I think with modern supersonic and now hypersonic weapons, engagements at less than 1 km are pretty much pointless.
 

JohnJT

Member
I haven't seen anything new about the gun selection yet. Having announced all the other major weapons on the CSC, it'd be interesting if we ever find out why the design team is still undecided on the main gun. I can only speculate that they are busy modelling whether the OTO 127/64's faster rate of fire and faster training/elevation provides a significant capability improvement and trying to estimate the design effort and cost of changing the gun to see whether it overcomes the Mk 45's advantage of already being in the Type 26 design and, as Redlands18 says, being used by the rest of the Five Eyes.
Personally I think they'd be crazy not to take the Mk 45. It's not just about the gun, it's the whole package. The Maritime Indirect Fires System (MIFS) Integrated Gunnery System (IGS) was developed specifically for the T26 with the UK having paid for the development. The complete system consists of the 5-inch, 62-caliber Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun System, an automated ammunition handling system, gun fire control system, and qualified ammunition. This system is state of the art, especially the automated ammunition handling system which is faster and safer than manned systems.

 

swerve

Super Moderator
I prefer CAMM to a gun weapon. At a few hundred meters, the kinetic energy of the weapon would still carry it into the ship and likely still take it out of action, even for a relatively slow, sub-sonic weapon. I think with modern supersonic and now hypersonic weapons, engagements at less than 1 km are pretty much pointless.
But if you have to use a CAMM on every pesky little recce drone, or things like a Harpy, an adversary could aim to use up your missiles before firing something able to put you out of action.
 

JohnJT

Member
But if you have to use a CAMM on every pesky little recce drone, or things like a Harpy, an adversary could aim to use up your missiles before firing something able to put you out of action.
Indeed. And there are other threats that are more appropriately handled by rapid fire artillery, like mortars, rockets and artillery shells. According to the US military the C-RAM systems used in the US green zones in Iraq have a 70% shoot down success rate and 105 separate attacks have been successfully defended.
 

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I don't have the links to hand, but from LM pictures of ExLS I've seen (including a cut-away), with things of known height to compare them with , I think that CAMM-ER might be a bit too long to fit in ExLS as it is now.

Interesting question about CAMM-ER minimum engagement range. Standard CAMM is quoted as "less than 1 km" - but how much less? And however close range, I'd still like there to be something able to shoot down such things as little drones a few hundred metres away, & small things which'd be a waste of a CAMM, quickly & reliably.
“Less than (oddly small number like 1km)” ranges tends to be combined with the limitation of the radar, CMS, or even launcher. Tough to say, but inside that, usually one of those things becomes the limiting factor more than the actual missile itself, especially one with a tip over feature like CAMM. My money would be on the radar. But even without those other limits, at some point you start creeping into safe limits to detonate without fragging yourself.

I wonder whether the larger, longer CAMM-ER is able to maintain the low minimum engagement range of CAMM? If so, things could be simplified with CAMM-ER replacing both CAMM and ESSM although that might also need a longer ExLS.
My personal opinion, unlikely. Canada is pretty heavily invested and involved as a controlling partner (industry involvement in design and production) in ESSM already with both Block 1 and 2. Compounded by the fact ESSM requires zero integration effort for CSC - AEGIS/MK41 basically comes with ESSM integration already done up front.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
IF our Canadian brethren use their brains the Sea Ceptor and 30mm gun approach can be successful. It's a system systems is it not, and they would use the best tool for the job.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Does CAMM have a significantly better minimum engagement range than ESSM? as I believe ESSM has quite a good minimum engagement range. Im not sure you are going to get a significantly better improvement (perhaps incremental).

On the type 26 what it does give you, is a second launch location, free by any other launches, and also usually well away from manned areas. It gives you additional shorter range missiles that don't consume your long range ESSM stock in your main launcher. CAMM sort of replacing the role that SeaRAM often has.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Does CAMM have a significantly better minimum engagement range than ESSM? as I believe ESSM has quite a good minimum engagement range. Im not sure you are going to get a significantly better improvement (perhaps incremental).

On the type 26 what it does give you, is a second launch location, free by any other launches, and also usually well away from manned areas. It gives you additional shorter range missiles that don't consume your long range ESSM stock in your main launcher. CAMM sort of replacing the role that SeaRAM often has.
IIRC Sea Ceptor is about 700 metres.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The CSC’s main gun selection has been made and it is Leonardo’s Oto Malera 127mm. Thus, considerable diversity between the 3 EYES T26s continues. Will truly be interesting to see all three in future naval exercises.

 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
The CSC’s main gun selection has been made and it is Leonardo’s Oto Malera 127mm. Thus, considerable diversity between the 3 EYES T26s continues. Will truly be interesting to see all three in future naval exercises.


I will buy the first decent print offered of all three, sailing side by side. As you say, very different fit-outs but the same capable hull.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
IIRC Sea Ceptor is about 700 metres.
ESSM is what, about 1000m..

I don't think engagement range is the primary focus. There are other advantages.

The CSC’s main gun selection has been made and it is Leonardo’s Oto Malera 127mm. Thus, considerable diversity between the 3 EYES T26s continues. Will truly be interesting to see all three in future naval exercises.
Yeh, each following their own development path. Sure will be interesting to benchmark against each other.
 
Top